Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Zafocaine

RHCP are the only headliner listed as a headliner. If you think Phoenix are a headliner, then you haven't heard them. I think the fact that the XX are billed so high shows that Coachella has run out of ideas. The XX are one of the most garbage bands people have been speculating to play Coachella. A waste of concert space for the two or three tolerable songs they have. RHCP is actually sort of genius. I was a fan of theirs in the 90s, as were a lot of you. We grew up, and RHCP kept making music unfortunately. The people who like RHCP now think that Stadium Arcadium was a great album, which, compared to their previous efforts, is absolutely false. I'm going to be wanting RHCP from the movie Thrashin. Not RHCP wearing emo socks on their arms. We'll see how it turns out though, apparently. Looking forward to see them, socks on their cocks, or socks on their arms. Let's have a good double weekend, ya'lls.

I at least know I'm gonna have fun at Phoenix's set. They should have been the weak Black Keys headliner; that would have been okay. The Stone Roses have a special place in my heart with a lot of sentimental value and I'm going to enjoy that, but should they be a headliner? FUCK NO. They are a headliner in my heart but they do not belong. Blur I am thinking might be the surprise hit of the weekend depending on crowd energy so we'll see with that. Then we get the fucking RHCP. I mean, even the bros who love them are complaining about this shit. What have they done to deserve being the first triple headliner in the festival's history? And especially after headlining everything in fucking 2012?

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Boourns

Goldenvoice has balls for putting Blur and the Stone Roses at the top of the bill and should be commended for it. As the biggest, most prestigious fest in the US, they have that power to define what is a headliner.
Glastonbury has been doing it for years (although not so much lately), and Coachella should have done it last year with Pulp or, although I hate them, Swedish House Mafia.

Blur already has the track record to ease any concerns that they won't be a flop like Jack Johnson or Glasto's Happy Mondays or Shalespear's Sister.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

1 - I could have sworn it went The Stone Roses . Blur at the top and not the other way like it is now?

And two, if you had have got Daft Punk, you wouldn't have cared if the other two were Pheonix and the YYY's. Infact, you probably wouldn't give a shit about any of the rest of the lineup.

You might call it biased but you have a band there that are performing as the 4 of them for the 1st time in either so long or ever as a group in the USA.

You also have a group who a long while ago it was all over the net, Blur to headline Coachella 2013? - Begging the question that it was presumed if they play they would do in some capacity. Not sure if they've played since 2003. Whereas, I understand for the US they are not deemed headliner size, people in the UK would go bloody crazy, in a good way if both of them topped a bill and the US got it.

RHCP - I'd see again, but people will call it how they like. Like or not, they are huge and with the the whole does the statement include April or not and shorter times than others between playing it was always in there.

For me, the weak headliner is Pheonix but I'm not american so respect their place in that market.

But there was no Daft Punk at Coachella ever going to happen in the end, the one band that might have had any substance was The Rolling Stones would have headlined over Pheonix.

Wether or not he does but Morrissey to make a cameo appearance during Johnny Mars set can't be ruled out

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

I am hoping that RHCP will realize that people aren't too excited about them closing the festival and do something a little different than their typical set.. whether that's some rare songs, special guests, incredible visuals, I don't know, but I have faith.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by enginedown

I am hoping that RHCP will realize that people aren't too excited about them closing the festival and do something a little different than their typical set.. whether that's some rare songs, special guests, incredible visuals, I don't know, but I have faith.

The best thing they could do is invite the rest of Atoms for Peace on stage. I am going to go ahead and get my hopes up for this thing that will not happen.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

If this has been discussed, then I apologize. Just too much to keep up with on the forum today.

I know there are two versions of the poster floating around (regarding the placement of Blur and The Stone Roses), but did anyone else notice that on the main page they have The Stone Roses headlining on weekend 1 and Blur on weekend 2?

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

There is absolutely nothing RCHP could do, unless they walked out, took the mic and said "we quit!" and then for no reason at all Aphex Twin closed the festival with INSANE visuals, 100 piece electronic orchestra dressed as zombies and a festival closer of blood curdling screams for 10 minutes straight... my god, it's full of stars

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Pea

If this has been discussed, then I apologize. Just too much to keep up with on the forum today.

I know there are two versions of the poster floating around (regarding the placement of Blur and The Stone Roses), but did anyone else notice that on the main page they have The Stone Roses headlining on weekend 1 and Blur on weekend 2?

Also noticed that. Interesting.

Originally Posted by Sleeping Lion

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for booze, I can tell you I don't have any top shelf liquor. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career in the porn industry. Skills that make me a gift for people like you. If you camp with me, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will bang you.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Pea

If this has been discussed, then I apologize. Just too much to keep up with on the forum today.

I know there are two versions of the poster floating around (regarding the placement of Blur and The Stone Roses), but did anyone else notice that on the main page they have The Stone Roses headlining on weekend 1 and Blur on weekend 2?

Good catch - I thought they updated it. Didn't notice the difference was between weekend 1 and weekend 2.

Originally Posted by RotationSlimWang

William, does Kitsgirl's avatar look to you like a woman giving birth to a giant baby as well?

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

The Stone Roses/Blur double headliner is actually really cool in my opinion....and the fact that Grinderman, Lou Reed, Modest Mouse, J5, and YYYs lead into that sounds even better.

With that being said, I am still shocked that we are getting Stone Roses and Blur as the headliner after how low Pulp was billed last year.

As Lou Reed going to clash with The Roses or Blur?

The thing you bring up with the Pulp thing is that although they were subbing, Blur and The Stone Roses are both hugely bigger than them. Pulp were sub to TBK but had SHM as a closing EDM act. Like in 2011, KOL headlined with The Chem Bro's as the closing dance act. 2010 had the same kinda thing.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Zafocaine

Modest Mouse is clearly the headliner for Friday. I don't think I've ever been so excited to ditch the "headliner" for the real deal. Britchella just isn't working for me. I'll listen to a couple more Blur records in their entirety, but I will still very likely not be there to see the live. I'm not much of a Radiohead fan, but even I had to stand there and watch them. Stone Roses/ Blur? Fuck that.

I will concede that Blur can be "Too British" to american ears in the same way as The Kinks, but stick with a greatest hits album and that should cover most of the setlist. Anyone that spends time the classic Stone Roses album will get hooked. Americans just weren't exposed to that album for various reasons relating to the bands management/tiny label/not touring the US.

Read UK music mags and Stone Roses are considered equally as influential as Nirvana and it's been that way for over 20 years.

Originally Posted by mrhand

This is going to be an embarrassment for both GV and the bands themselves when they realize what a dud Friday night turns out to be. 4 straight hours of prime-time main-stage real estate wasted on bands that should be on the Outdoor or Mojave. You'll have a few thousand Brits and other various furriners,

Friday will be an interesting experiment to see if casual Coachella festival goers do their homework or not. It's not that they don't like the 2 bands(like KOL, Jack J, Pavement or Faith No More) it's that they've never been exposed to the band and their catalogues. We know many don't do homework on smaller/mid/sub names, but putting and "obscure" name on the top line might be different.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by baily

every year I'm a bit disappointed at the lineup...this year not as much, but understand once you start researching the bands....there are always awesome groups you've never heard of that you'll become a fan of once you see them live at Coachella.

I don't get caught up in the initial feeling of the lineup release....because I know even if the sesame street band was the headliner I always have a blast at the festival.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by gary312

As Lou Reed going to clash with The Roses or Blur?

The thing you bring up with the Pulp thing is that although they were subbing, Blur and The Stone Roses are both hugely bigger than them. Pulp were sub to TBK but had SHM as a closing EDM act. Like in 2011, KOL headlined with The Chem Bro's as the closing dance act. 2010 had the same kinda thing.

I could be waaaaay wrong, but I thought that Pulp were at the very least AS popular as The Stone Roses in the US. Once again, I love all three bands. I am super pumped for the Stone Roses/Blur double headliner. But from a ticket selling point, I would be willing to bet more people know Common People than any single The Stone Roses ever had in the USA. I almost feel like by this logic The Verve should have double headlined with Jack Johnson.

Either way, it's just something to discuss for fun. Stone Roses/Blur is what will be bringing me back music wise.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Zafocaine

They should have put Nickelback on the outdoor to close out the night counter RHCP and successfully drive a steak through the Legion's heart all at once. Having grown up with RHCP, I don't see how you could even compare them to Creed-like rockers Nickelback. Consider NOT buying tickets now, as you clearly missed the presale and will be taking up a happy persons spot if you end up going.

You're a fucking idiot on more levels than the reasons why RHCP are fucking terrible. First, you grew up on RHCP. You want a fucking cookie? I also grew up on them. Loved the shit out of them until Blood Sugar Sex Magic. That was the last worthwhile album they put out. They have been horrific radio garbage ever since. So they've been a goddamn joke for over 20 years now. Second, nobody compared them to Nickelback. I said I'd be equally disappointed with Nickelback. You did, however, compare Nickleback to Creed and despite them being equally wretched, they sound nothing alike. If you cleaned some of that semen out of your ears from your weekly bukkake sessions, you may be able to tell the difference. You may also then realize that RHCP have been nowhere near good for most of while you were "growing up on them"...unless you're over 35 years old. Lastly, not to let you down for being a +1 chormosome version of Sherlock Holmes, I am going...and I did get the presale. "Clearly." Hang yourself.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by donomyte

You're a fucking idiot on more levels than the reasons why RHCP are fucking terrible. First, you grew up on RHCP. You want a fucking cookie? I also grew up on them. Loved the shit out of them until Blood Sugar Sex Magic. That was the last worthwhile album they put out. They have been horrific radio garbage ever since. So they've been a goddamn joke for over 20 years now. Second, nobody compared them to Nickelback. I said I'd be equally disappointed with Nickelback. You did, however, compare Nickleback to Creed and despite them being equally wretched, they sound nothing alike. If you cleaned some of that semen out of your ears from your weekly bukkake sessions, you may be able to tell the difference. You may also then realize that RHCP have been nowhere near good for most of while you were "growing up on them"...unless you're over 35 years old. Lastly, not to let you down for being a +1 chormosome version of Sherlock Holmes, I am going...and I did get the presale. "Clearly." Hang yourself.

Did you make an account just to talk about your cum fantasies? It's good to see you've picked up some shit talk from lurking the boards, though your performance left much to be desired for anyone with more than a middle school education. I'm sure your community college peers would be quite proud of you. It appears that you agreed with me on most points, if you took the time to read what I posted. Nickelback and Creed are identical quality-wise. RHCP have been complete garbage since Californication. That was middle school, for me, and I became less of a fan for it during an era of my life when musical consciousness was more important. Not sure if your post was meant to disagree with me, or insult me, but you failed both attempts. Compose yourself and try again.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

First of all, I'm absolutely over the moon with the lineup, despite the headliners seeming a little meh... I just have one question as this will be my first time at Coachella.

Is the possibility of late adds to the lineup a myth or has this happened in the past? And if so, has it ever happened with a headliner sized artist?

I noticed on facebook the caption to the lineup says FIRST... what the hell for... is there a possible 2nd announcement with one or more acts that are still in negotiations.

Late adds have absolutely occurred in the past, with Prince being a late add headliner in 2008, and other major late adds including Madonna, Kanye West, etc happening. However, as far as I remember, these adds were to try to push slowing ticket sales, and there has never been a huge add after the festival has sold out. Since 2010, the adds have been fairly unexciting due to the quicker and quicker sell outs (Die Antwoord in 2010, I don't remember any in 2011, and then wallpaper./Mea/Tijuana Panthers/Kiss Kiss Bang Bang in 2012). If this sells out both weekends in a week, let alone a couple hours like last year, I wouldn't expect anything bigger than the bottom rows of the undercard.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Call me a conspiracy theorist but...

That random leaked app notification originally said the Rolling Stones would be playing on the Friday of Coachella. The current bill has two British rock groups headlining Friday (The Stone Roses, and Blur). For an event that is so good about not having their lineup information leak, that seems like such an unlikely gaffe. Furthermore, why would that information even exist if the Rolling Stones had not already signed a contract to perform.

Saturday- Frenchmen Phoenix are the current headliner. Could another French group be added to the bill?... Daft Punk? Daft Punk did come out with Phoenix at an MSG show in 2010.

Sunday- I think Atoms for Peace might show up as Flea is a member of that band anyway.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Zafocaine

Did you make an account just to talk about your cum fantasies? It's good to see you've picked up some shit talk from lurking the boards, though your performance left much to be desired for anyone with more than a middle school education. I'm sure your community college peers would be quite proud of you. It appears that you agreed with me on most points, if you took the time to read what I posted. Nickelback and Creed are identical quality-wise. RHCP have been complete garbage since Californication. That was middle school, for me, and I became less of a fan for it during an era of my life when musical consciousness was more important. Not sure if your post was meant to disagree with me, or insult me, but you failed both attempts. Compose yourself and try again.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by sabellard

Call me a conspiracy theorist but...

That random leaked app notification originally said the Rolling Stones would be playing on the Friday of Coachella. The current bill has two British rock groups headlining Friday (The Stone Roses, and Blur). For an event that is so good about not having their lineup information leak, that seems like such an unlikely gaffe. Furthermore, why would that information even exist if the Rolling Stones had not already signed a contract to perform.

2009 - Cure & McCartney

RHCP in for Stones seems to be the more popular guess. The Friday headliners would have taken many months to plan a head. Blur seem to know months ago about "spring dates"

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Is it nap time, lil tuck? Looks like you ran out of searingly stupid shit to say. Go review more MJA posts so we can continue this.

Unlike you, who has a plethora of stupid shit to say at any given moment, right?

I'm actually busy laughing at you giving credit to RHCP for all the way up to Californication. That's hilarious. I bet you loved Aeroplane. Or maybe their rendition of Love Rollercoaster. I bet those were soothing sounds while you were growing up so hard on them. And I thought I told you to hang yourself.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by donomyte

Unlike you, who has a plethora of stupid shit to say at any given moment, right?

I'm actually busy laughing at you giving credit to RHCP for all the way up to Californication. That's hilarious. I bet you loved Aeroplane. Or maybe their rendition of Love Rollercoaster. I bet those were soothing sounds while you were growing up so hard on them. And I thought I told you to hang yourself.

Are you under the impression that this is the only band I listened to growing up? How stupid can you make yourself look in five posts? You've really outdone yourself. Aeroplane and Love Rollercoaster were jammy. If you didn't enjoy those songs for the poppy good crap they were, then you're probably just a bitch (as displayed in posts 1-5). There is no end to stupid shit I can pull out of a hat and throw in your face, laced with just enough honesty and reality to make a real dumbshit out of you and most people with incredibly low opinions of themselves like you. Your influence over people with more clarity of mind than you is non-existent. Simple arithmetic, skid.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Zafocaine

Are you under the impression that this is the only band I listened to growing up? How stupid can you make yourself look in five posts? You've really outdone yourself. Aeroplane and Love Rollercoaster were jammy. If you didn't enjoy those songs for the poppy good crap they were, then you're probably just a bitch (as displayed in posts 1-5). There is no end to stupid shit I can pull out of a hat and throw in your face, laced with just enough honesty and reality to make a real dumbshit out of you and most people with incredibly low opinions of themselves like you. Your influence over people with more clarity of mind than you is non-existent. Simple arithmetic, skid.

Yawn. Just another try-hard. How bout you try hard to blow Magic Johnson...?

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by sabellard

Call me a conspiracy theorist but...

That random leaked app notification originally said the Rolling Stones would be playing on the Friday of Coachella. The current bill has two British rock groups headlining Friday (The Stone Roses, and Blur). For an event that is so good about not having their lineup information leak, that seems like such an unlikely gaffe. Furthermore, why would that information even exist if the Rolling Stones had not already signed a contract to perform.

Saturday- Frenchmen Phoenix are the current headliner. Could another French group be added to the bill?... Daft Punk? Daft Punk did come out with Phoenix at an MSG show in 2010.

Sunday- I think Atoms for Peace might show up as Flea is a member of that band anyway.

Thoughts? Am I bat-shit crazy?

Phoenix---->France---->DAFT PUNK!!!!

Wasn't there a south park episode where they tied together barely related things like that?

As cool as that would be, it seems like a major leap. I think it might be batshit. No offense intended however

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by sabellard

Call me a conspiracy theorist but...

That random leaked app notification originally said the Rolling Stones would be playing on the Friday of Coachella. The current bill has two British rock groups headlining Friday (The Stone Roses, and Blur). For an event that is so good about not having their lineup information leak, that seems like such an unlikely gaffe. Furthermore, why would that information even exist if the Rolling Stones had not already signed a contract to perform.

Saturday- Frenchmen Phoenix are the current headliner. Could another French group be added to the bill?... Daft Punk? Daft Punk did come out with Phoenix at an MSG show in 2010.

Sunday- I think Atoms for Peace might show up as Flea is a member of that band anyway.